Poverty in Late Victorian England - Essay Example

Insert Introduction The Victorian Era is specific to the British Empire and is the period that covers the reign of Queen Victoria, up to the time of her death. Given that Queen Victoria’s reign began on 20 June 1837 and the same reign was brought to its conclusion on 22 January, 1901, the Victorian Age lasts from 1837 to 1901. One of the phenomena that have always characterized human civilization is poverty. Poverty has always existed since man existed, but has taken different manifestations, depending on the prevailing characteristics of a given age, as shall be seen in the ensuing discourse, vis-à-vis, the Victorian Age. According to Boyer and Schmidle, one of the manifestations of poverty in the Victorian Era is the development and existence of slums. At the time, the most notable slums were located in East London, and for this case, East London was nicknamed, the darkest London by respectable citizens. Other parts of the city which were infested with slums include Clerkenwell, Jacob’s Island (situated in Bermondsey), the Devil’s Acre in Westminster Abbey, the southern banks of Thames River, Pottery Lane in Notting Hill, Mint in Southwark and Giles in Central London. These slums rapidly emerged against the backdrop of inhabitation by the predominantly working class population. This subculture had not been factored in the city’s planning and housing programs. Because of this, the substandard houses were cheap enough for the poorly remunerated working class to afford. The subculture in this case comprised Irish immigrants, English population, the German Jew, the Russian, immigrants from Eastern and Central Europe and lived in abject poverty. This population obtained its shelter in the larger part of Whitechapel and the rest of the surrounding areas of Mile End and St. George’s-in-the-East (Boyer and Schmidle, 249). Another manifestation of poverty is crime. Because of poverty and increased settlement in the slums, Whitechapel and other slums not only became the hub of the Victorian East End but also an overcrowded and crime-riddled area. In these areas, there were many poor families that were living, packed in single-roomed accommodations bereft of proper ventilation and adequate sanitation. Alongside this condition, there were about 200 common lodging houses for sheltering more than 8,000 destitute and homeless people, for every night. It is against this backdrop that the renowned writer and social researcher, Margaret Harkness rented one of these rooms in Whitechapel, so as to make firsthand observations and study of Whitechapel’s degraded slum life. In respect to the immediately foregoing (crime), areas such as Whitechapel, Clerkenwell and Jacob’s Island were known as the homes of homicide during the 1880s. It is against this backdrop that Jack the Ripper, the anonymous serial women killer came about in Flower and Dean Street. Understanding the irrevocable nexus between poverty and crime, as a way of responding to crime, the London County Council made successful and vigorous attempts to pull down worst slums. The London County Council introduced and used the slum upgrading and clearance programs to abate the number of slums in both Britain and London. Williamson contends that the plight of poor housing as a manifestation of poverty during the Victorian age is informed by the housing culture of the Victorians. Those who worked for long hours were compelled to live within the proximity of their workstation. It is for this reason that available housing highly priced and highly scarce. Because of this, tenants by themselves would let their rooms for 2 dollars to 4 dollars in a day, to their fellow employees. This was an artifice to meet their rent. Because of this, most industrialized cities in Europe and the United Kingdom, particularly, London, were totally overcrowded, unsanitary and underdeveloped. These houses and the slums that emerged from these conditions were known as the rookeries (Williamson, 99 – 131). There were instances in which pockets of some British cities were the domicile for those who suffered from incurable diseases. For instance, Spitalfields which derives its name from the historic St. Mary’s Spittel was known for being the preserve of lepers. Spitalfields was initially inhabited by rich French Huguenot silk-workers and weavers. As the district moved to the mid 19th century, the descendants of Spitalfields were brought down to deplorable living conditions because of the competition which was emanating from the Manchester textile factories. Thusly, Spitalfields slumped down into a crime-infested and slum-riddled area. Resultantly, the once handsome and spacious Huguenot houses were partitioned into tiny dwellings. These tiny dwellings were rented out to the poor laborers and helping hands seeking employment in the docks nearby. According to Bailey, the legacy that poverty left in the Victorian age is personified by an array of charitable organizations. For instance, from the 1850s and beyond, the Sisters of Mercy under the guidance of Father Daniel Gilbert opened and established a night refuge for the destitute, especially, women and children. This was done in the Providence Row. One of the most renowned bankers and philanthropists, George Peabody also created a foundation. This foundation put up improved dwellings for London’s laboring poor and artisans, specifically in Commercial Street, 1864. Other organizations and present-day charities, ditto the Children’s Society came into existence at this point in history. These charitable organizations began combating poverty among the Victorians, empowering people, addressing modern poverty-related issues in the 21st century. Nevertheless, given the spread of poverty in the country, these kind overtures were too inadequate to improve the living conditions and standards of the poor (Bailey, 194 – 196). It is important to note that the plight of the poor or the manifestation of poverty in the Victorian age was replicated throughout Europe and the Americas, due to several reasons. It must be remembered that the world, specifically, Europe and the United States at the time was becoming industrialized. Industrialization in turn took place in towns and near cities because of the need for infrastructure (roads, medium of communication and other incentives to trade). Since industries were mostly situated in cities and towns, industrialization and urbanization went hand in hand and made labor and capital to also be concentrated in urban centers. Friedman posits that most employment opportunities were only found in newly developed and industrialized towns and cities and therefore, many people left rural areas and heritage to converge on urban areas. Because of the glut of labor around the urban areas, both skilled and unskilled laborers were accorded subsistence wages. Likewise, in the event that the work being tended to was seasonal or subject to a slump by demand, laborers were laid off either permanently or temporarily. During the temporary laying off, employees had to eke out on life since they had no savings to survive on up to the next employment opportunity that could come their way. It is against this development that the gap between the rich capital owners and laborers (the have-nots) increased (Friedman, 252 – 254). Herrick takes the standpoint that the same development immediately above resulted in an atrophied purchasing power. Skilled town laborers who were working in their trade had been reduced to a level that was twice less than that which is recommended in the Speenhamland allowance. The import of this is that a greater part of the town laborers lived a life barely above subsistence. As the world neared the turn of the 20th century, 31 percent of London’s population was living below the poverty line (Herrick, 370 – 371). Another manifestation of poverty in the Victorian age was the use of child labor. Because of the rising cost of living and low wages, poor Victorians subjected their children to child labor. According to Monsen, Victorians also sent their children in the streets so that they could fend for themselves. In respect to this, the boy child worked as chimney sweeper and in the narrow shafts in London’s coal mines. Alternatively, the boy child was also tasked with retrieving cotton bobbins under very noisy weaving looms. As early as 1848, it is estimated that about 30,000 children lived in the streets of London, hungry, cold and filthy (Monsen, 413 – 414). As a response to the foregoing, Tromp divulge that most Victorians in the bid to improve the lot of their children surmised that education was the key. Resultantly, ragged and substandard schools were brought up to provide Victorian children with basic education. There are others who gainsaid this rationale and development, on the account that crime was not a culmination of illiteracy. On the contrary, the notion continued that literacy only encouraged, informed and solidified a much more skilful breed of criminals. This notion was totally antithetical to the calls for the provision of access to education for all. The same served also as a source of derailment against the same course. There are others who yet thought that funds that were accorded to the poor were subject to wanton squandering on gambling and drinks and as such, were not instrumental in solving the prevailing social problems. This state of affairs dampened the spirit of charity and social work (Tromp, 582 – 591). Conclusion It is important to note that poverty in the Victorian age was not a culmination of the scarcity of resources. Instead, the emergence and stratification of poverty was as result of the exploitation of the laborer at the hands of the rich capital owner. Marxism explains this development and is best understood in light of the socio-economic stratification of the society and the class consciousness which came out of the stratification. The long-term argument that Karl Marx and Friederich Engel’s theory of class consciousness and antagonism was a result of the two political theorists and philosophers observing the plight of the industrial laborer is therefore worthy of credence. Works Cited Bailey, Victor. “Poverty and Compassion: The Moral Imagination of the Late Victorians.” Journal of Social History, 27.1 (1993): 194 – 196. Print Boyer, George R and Schmidle, Timothy P. “Poverty among the elderly in late Victorian England.” The Economic History Review 62.2 (2009): 249. Print Friedman, Lawrence J. “The New Victorians: Poverty, Politics, and Propaganda in Two Gilded Ages.” The American Historical Review, 112.1 (2007): 252 – 254. Print Herrick, John M. “The New Victorians: Poverty, Politics, and Propaganda in Two Gilded Ages.” Social Work, 50.4 (2005): 370 – 371. Print Monsen, Rita Black. “Victorian Children in Trouble.” Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 24.5 (2009): 413 – 414. Print Tromp, Marlene. “Victorian Murder: Complex Problems and Academic Interdisciplinarity.” Literature Compass, 10.7 (2013): 582 – 591. Print Williamson, Lori. “The Victorians.” History: Reviews of New Books, 31.3 (2003): 99 – 131. Print Read More